Bardicheart
Mongoose
Well the above certainly gives me plenty to chew on for a bit.
Ship Design Philosophy
- Thread starter Condottiere
- Start date
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Thirty ton Smallcraft
Too large for light fighters, too small for medium.
It's primary benefit would be that it can dock with one ton clamps, which indicates it's widely used commercially, which may mean that it's useful for the military as a utility craft, possibly as a light assault shuttle or dropship, since external docking means that it wouldn't require use of tubes for a mass launch.
I can see this size being used as a general purpose craft for smaller escorts.
Too large for light fighters, too small for medium.
It's primary benefit would be that it can dock with one ton clamps, which indicates it's widely used commercially, which may mean that it's useful for the military as a utility craft, possibly as a light assault shuttle or dropship, since external docking means that it wouldn't require use of tubes for a mass launch.
I can see this size being used as a general purpose craft for smaller escorts.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Adventure Class Ships
Seems pointless to use the Core Book system to design anything beyond a thousand tons, as both costs and space utilization do not compare favourably to capital ship design system.
It's obvious that Naval Design boards would recognize this, and hack the capital ship system to get components into sub-2K hulls, as they have both the capacity and need to mass produce large numbers of standard starships.
Seems pointless to use the Core Book system to design anything beyond a thousand tons, as both costs and space utilization do not compare favourably to capital ship design system.
It's obvious that Naval Design boards would recognize this, and hack the capital ship system to get components into sub-2K hulls, as they have both the capacity and need to mass produce large numbers of standard starships.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
What is the cheapest possible freighter?
1. Hundred ton hull at 2 Mcr.
2. Hundred ton drop tank at 2.2Mcr; 4 tons docking ports; drop tank not ejected.
3. Bridge ten tons at 0.53 Mcr; standard electronics suite.
4. One two ton stateroom at 0.25 Mcr; hot bunking.
5. Two ten ton docking clamps at 4 Mcr.
6. Power plant fuel fourteen tons for twenty four and a half days, or twelve tons for twenty one days.
6. Drive suite D; j25/m(reactionless)14/p13 at fifty two tons and 96 Mcror; or j25/m(reactionary)7/p13/f at forty five tons and 88 Mcr with manoeuvring fuel of five tons.
7. Flight crew of Pilot and Engineer.
You have a a one parsec cargo hauler with two three hundred ton pods at 96.98 or 104.98 Mcr.
1. Hundred ton hull at 2 Mcr.
2. Hundred ton drop tank at 2.2Mcr; 4 tons docking ports; drop tank not ejected.
3. Bridge ten tons at 0.53 Mcr; standard electronics suite.
4. One two ton stateroom at 0.25 Mcr; hot bunking.
5. Two ten ton docking clamps at 4 Mcr.
6. Power plant fuel fourteen tons for twenty four and a half days, or twelve tons for twenty one days.
6. Drive suite D; j25/m(reactionless)14/p13 at fifty two tons and 96 Mcror; or j25/m(reactionary)7/p13/f at forty five tons and 88 Mcr with manoeuvring fuel of five tons.
7. Flight crew of Pilot and Engineer.
You have a a one parsec cargo hauler with two three hundred ton pods at 96.98 or 104.98 Mcr.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Fixed Missile Launcher
If I recall correctly, a turret in CT had three launchers and could have three missiles each before it needed reloading. Assuming this still holds true in Mongoose, though I doubt it, if there are only twelve missiles available in a ton, and if you assume crew space takes up half a ton, you still have three launchers and six missiles.
While digesting Traders and Gunboats, I came across the Antique Fighter which separately lists the fixed missile rack launcher as one ton.
1. At a maximum, it would seem that generic turret weapons cannot be individually larger than 166 kilos.
2. That the space accounts for either a missile already in the launcher, with one spare, or it does not. this brings up the question of what happens during an extended engagement, since even if there's an automated loading mechanism, from the magazine, that would require more space.
3. Of course, in a fixed installation, without that rotating turret, that's easier to accommodate. If the one ton is for the autoloader, how does that relate to turret launchers, since it would mean you'd need to add that mechanism, unless you're going to do it by hand, and I believe that would be more awkward than 155mm artillery shell.
If I recall correctly, a turret in CT had three launchers and could have three missiles each before it needed reloading. Assuming this still holds true in Mongoose, though I doubt it, if there are only twelve missiles available in a ton, and if you assume crew space takes up half a ton, you still have three launchers and six missiles.
While digesting Traders and Gunboats, I came across the Antique Fighter which separately lists the fixed missile rack launcher as one ton.
1. At a maximum, it would seem that generic turret weapons cannot be individually larger than 166 kilos.
2. That the space accounts for either a missile already in the launcher, with one spare, or it does not. this brings up the question of what happens during an extended engagement, since even if there's an automated loading mechanism, from the magazine, that would require more space.
3. Of course, in a fixed installation, without that rotating turret, that's easier to accommodate. If the one ton is for the autoloader, how does that relate to turret launchers, since it would mean you'd need to add that mechanism, unless you're going to do it by hand, and I believe that would be more awkward than 155mm artillery shell.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Jump Fuel: Where does it go?
While researching drop tanks, it occurred to me, that all that fuel has to go somewhere, since you have a sudden separation of the space it rested before, to another space within the starship, and assuming the molecules aren't super compressed.
So I wonder that if there isn't a pocket dimension created within the Jump Drive to contain all that mass, just short of the actual jump when it's vomited back.
While researching drop tanks, it occurred to me, that all that fuel has to go somewhere, since you have a sudden separation of the space it rested before, to another space within the starship, and assuming the molecules aren't super compressed.
So I wonder that if there isn't a pocket dimension created within the Jump Drive to contain all that mass, just short of the actual jump when it's vomited back.
IanBruntlett
Emperor Mongoose
I am not a space scientist... but consider E=mc2 (E equals mc squared).Condottiere said:
Here is a suggestion:-
The Mass of the jump fuel is converted into Energy.
Supposedly it's used to 'inflate' the jump bubble - a ship's jump engine produces a little pocket universe, 'blows it up' by injecting hydrogen, then sails off inside it until the bubble pops a week or so later.
Kind of a random mental image, but that's more or less my understanding.
Kind of a random mental image, but that's more or less my understanding.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
1. Browsing through another forum the concept that ships were upgraded as TL crept up arose. Personally I think, that outside electronics and other relatively small items this seems a waste of time and money for an interstellar navy to bother with, though a colonial fleet might be willing to finance the refurbishment.
2. While attaching drop tanks to battleships and/or battle riders must have occurred to at least half the readers of the Trillion Credit Squadrons, the tactic of using them to jump into a system as a reserve to jump back out again seems to me secondary to using them for strategic movement from one theatre of operations to another.
3. I'm not an engineer, but I can't imagine it's feasible to upgrade a ship's armour by welding on additional layers internally, nor stripping it of it's shell and replacing it with a new one. However, you cold bolt on armour on the outside. I thought I'd call this practice ironcladding.
4. Finally found a use for eighty ton smallcraft; since the drive table only goes up to sZ, this is the largest size that will fly at six gees, assuming you're not allowed to fractionalize performance with ninety tons at five and one third.
2. While attaching drop tanks to battleships and/or battle riders must have occurred to at least half the readers of the Trillion Credit Squadrons, the tactic of using them to jump into a system as a reserve to jump back out again seems to me secondary to using them for strategic movement from one theatre of operations to another.
3. I'm not an engineer, but I can't imagine it's feasible to upgrade a ship's armour by welding on additional layers internally, nor stripping it of it's shell and replacing it with a new one. However, you cold bolt on armour on the outside. I thought I'd call this practice ironcladding.
4. Finally found a use for eighty ton smallcraft; since the drive table only goes up to sZ, this is the largest size that will fly at six gees, assuming you're not allowed to fractionalize performance with ninety tons at five and one third.
I dunno. Pulling a particle bay mount and replacing it with a high yield, accurate one doesn't strike me as a bad idea if you have the cash to do so.
Electronics installations and software are the primary things you can upgrade, and you may find the command and control systems get a work-over (enough to promote it to a holographic bridge if it wasn't before), but guns are a potential.
As you say, armour is a bit too structurally fundamental to upgrade most of the time. At least, certainly replacing one armour type for another is a massive job (not least because cutting through crystaliron plate in a drydock must be a bloody nightmare).
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
1. Which is why I think that welding on armour on the outside, especially for Merchant Armed (Armoured) Cruisers sounds feasible. In theory, since they've made ship weapon systems nicely modular, upgrading doesn't seem problematic. However, I think that missile launchers need to be specific to the exact size of the missile, and presumably the mountings for other reduced size weapon systems as well.
2. I came across something called a High Burn Thruster, that only works for an hour, but is one fifth the size of the equivalent Fusion Rocket, and apparently only burns twenty five percent of the net volume of it's specific fuel of the craft's Thruster. Seems to be the afterburner I'm looking for.
3. For TL12 navies, purposely building ships of commercial specs above Jump H, Man K and Power K would seem of limited utility, unless commonality of components would be the deciding factor.
2. I came across something called a High Burn Thruster, that only works for an hour, but is one fifth the size of the equivalent Fusion Rocket, and apparently only burns twenty five percent of the net volume of it's specific fuel of the craft's Thruster. Seems to be the afterburner I'm looking for.
3. For TL12 navies, purposely building ships of commercial specs above Jump H, Man K and Power K would seem of limited utility, unless commonality of components would be the deciding factor.
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Condottiere said:
I wish you could detail the actual construction so I could see how you conceived it.
A drop tank that isn't a drop tank is a fuel tank that but you add 4 tons fuel and cost an extra 2.2Mcr to the ship. Since you carry this tank with the ship and the ship regularly carries 2 * 300 cargo tons, this is an 800 ton ship which would need a 20 ton bridge at 4.0Mcr. You also only need 80 tons for one jump. You have 20 tons waste.
Assuming a free trader willing to sub-minimize the crew requirement see HG pg 69 Crew Strength (since drop tanks are High Guard). I can't find 'hot bunking' in either the Core or High Guard books though I though it was once used only on small craft. Double bunking is the worst condition Traveller puts a crew under and that's a least one full stateroom at 4 tons and 0.5Mcr.
I assume Drive suite D means J-1, M-1, P-1 which is reasonable for a cheap freighter. J-1 is 25t/40Mcr, M-1 is 7t/16Mcr and P-1 is 13t/32Mcr plus 2 week fuel of 8 tons. That's 45 tons and 88Mcr.
The docking clamps are no problem and we'll assume the 300t pods are common but remember the 600 tons of regularly carried cargo pods do count as total ship displacement.
Someone check my math and references. I think I got it right.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
1. Drop tank - it was an intellectual exercise, since I'd have paid the extra 3.8 Mcr for a two hundred ton hull; much more interesting when tonnage costs 0.1 Mcr/ton. Also, bridge size would have remained the same and you'd get an extra hardpoint. It does allow me to offshore the twelve to nineteen tons of fuel allocation, which would again give more breathing space to the crew. I'd also save four tons of explosive bolts.
2. Bridge - I've wrestled with this question, and the answer is, the bridge is an interface with the actual ship, not attachments. Consider the ship the equivalent to an interstellar tug, and the pilot really only needs to keep an eye what's going on with the hundred ton hull's electronics and mechanics. I would, of course, install webcams and motion detectors on the attachments, and all those need is to be fed to a laptop.
3. Speaking of tugs, originally I had planned to shift a thousand tons, then somehow I ended up with all the drives on one hull; in theory, in a two hundred ton hull, I could use the spare twenty tons to fit in a couple of staterooms. IIRC what stymied me was having to find place for an extra power plant to power the grav drives for the smallcraft tug, then the realization sZ was only gong to have enough thrust for 480 tons. One option would be to install two sZs in the smallcraft tug for 960 tons thrust, and the other would two tugs; unfortunately, that would raise the eventual cost by more than a hundred million, which is probably why I restuffed everything back into the hundred ton hull.
1. Hundred ton hull at 2 Mcr.
2. Hundred ton drop tank at 2.2Mcr; 4 tons docking ports; drop tank not ejected.
3. Bridge ten tons at 0.53 Mcr; standard electronics suite.
4. One four ton stateroom at 0.5 Mcr.
5. Two ten ton docking clamps at 4 Mcr.
6. Emergency power plant fuel of one ton; twenty one tons of fuel for thirty six and three fourth days.
6. Drive suite D; j25/m(reactionless)14/p13 at fifty two tons and 96 Mcror; or j25/m(reactionary)7/p13 at forty five tons and 88 Mcr.
7. Flight crew of Pilot and Engineer.
8. Nine to sixteen tons unallocated; with a two hundred ton hull, I could lower fuel tankage to two weeks and add back sixteen tons.
2. Bridge - I've wrestled with this question, and the answer is, the bridge is an interface with the actual ship, not attachments. Consider the ship the equivalent to an interstellar tug, and the pilot really only needs to keep an eye what's going on with the hundred ton hull's electronics and mechanics. I would, of course, install webcams and motion detectors on the attachments, and all those need is to be fed to a laptop.
3. Speaking of tugs, originally I had planned to shift a thousand tons, then somehow I ended up with all the drives on one hull; in theory, in a two hundred ton hull, I could use the spare twenty tons to fit in a couple of staterooms. IIRC what stymied me was having to find place for an extra power plant to power the grav drives for the smallcraft tug, then the realization sZ was only gong to have enough thrust for 480 tons. One option would be to install two sZs in the smallcraft tug for 960 tons thrust, and the other would two tugs; unfortunately, that would raise the eventual cost by more than a hundred million, which is probably why I restuffed everything back into the hundred ton hull.
1. Hundred ton hull at 2 Mcr.
2. Hundred ton drop tank at 2.2Mcr; 4 tons docking ports; drop tank not ejected.
3. Bridge ten tons at 0.53 Mcr; standard electronics suite.
4. One four ton stateroom at 0.5 Mcr.
5. Two ten ton docking clamps at 4 Mcr.
6. Emergency power plant fuel of one ton; twenty one tons of fuel for thirty six and three fourth days.
6. Drive suite D; j25/m(reactionless)14/p13 at fifty two tons and 96 Mcror; or j25/m(reactionary)7/p13 at forty five tons and 88 Mcr.
7. Flight crew of Pilot and Engineer.
8. Nine to sixteen tons unallocated; with a two hundred ton hull, I could lower fuel tankage to two weeks and add back sixteen tons.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
1. While the above is an intellectual exercise, one of my real interests is the creation of the cheapest possible starship, that a group of adventurers could afford on their own.
2. Marc Miller seems insistent that the smallest jump drive is ten tons, possibly in reaction to the FF&S formula, which if I recall correctly, postulated the minimum at one ton. Since Jump technology is highly mystical, it's hard to go against the Word Of God, though you run up against the interesting possibilities of manufacturing ten ton capital jump drives, that could push five hundred ton hulls one parsec, to one hundred sixty-six ton ones at six parsecs.
3. With sublight drives and fusion plants, we know they can be miniaturized, so placing minimums seems arbitrary. We also know that grav drives should be an option for large craft considering they are mentioned in smallcraft design, but most mention of them have been deleted from Mongoose.
4. By the same token, we should be able to install adventure class components in smallcraft; in fact, early versions had A suites installed for thirty tons (six gees), forty tons (five gees) and fifty tons (four gees).
5. Ten ton smallcraft hulls cost the same per ton to construct as capital ships, and construction costs decline in relative terms until they reach hundred tons, and then start up again.
6. Is it possible to construct sub ten ton smallcraft. It should, but structural integrity might be an issue, so five percent can allocated to that.
7. In non-militarized smallcraft, the largest costs will be the drive and power plant, so the ideal would be to manufacture ones that are just large enough to accomplish what they were purposed for. This also saves space if they are intended to be integral to the adventurer's mothership.
8. In CT and Mongoose, the smallest adventure class bridge is ten tons; interestingly enough, the smallest capital class bridge is a tad over ten tons. The difference might be that all adventure class bridges are modular, whereas capital class ones are customized to the ship/batch they were designed for, which makes them more efficient in layout and operation.
9. The smallest section of capital class ships is a tad over a thousand tons, which would indicate that you could construct thousand ton single shell escorts around a ten ton bridge. Whether you could construct a freight hauler around that and attach drop tanks and cargo pods is another matter (but still interesting to consider).
10. But back to what I'll call the Venture class: a hundred ton hull with J1/M1/P1 that was cheap enough to buy and maintain, and large enough to take everyone to the next adventure. The sticking points are the Jump drive, since every extra ton counted, even if you could only scrape up two or three tons, or possibly four tons, if you could isolate the jump governor in the five ton overhead and assume removal will add another ton.
11. The other problem is the Fusion Rocket reaction drive since it sucks up a fortieth of the tonnage in fuel per gee/hour. Even if you argue that grav drives can't scale into large craft, you know that you could install one with sufficient thrust upto four hundred and eight tons. This avoids trying to bypass this rule by installing a docking clamp and getting a smallcraft to act as a tug.
12. To outrun pirates or Imperial entanglements, you could install a High Burn thruster, which is only one fifth the size of the equivalent fusion rocket, though consumed a rather high priced fuel.
13. Adding a drop tank and other attachments complicates matters for jumps if the subA Jump drive is installed. If this path is followed, cleanswept is your mantra.
14. Flattened sphere seems to have been dropped from hull configurations, though I always felt that it offered the best of all possible worlds, streamlined and cheap. I always pictured my larger creations looking like clamshells, and the smaller ones like the Jupiter 2.
2. Marc Miller seems insistent that the smallest jump drive is ten tons, possibly in reaction to the FF&S formula, which if I recall correctly, postulated the minimum at one ton. Since Jump technology is highly mystical, it's hard to go against the Word Of God, though you run up against the interesting possibilities of manufacturing ten ton capital jump drives, that could push five hundred ton hulls one parsec, to one hundred sixty-six ton ones at six parsecs.
3. With sublight drives and fusion plants, we know they can be miniaturized, so placing minimums seems arbitrary. We also know that grav drives should be an option for large craft considering they are mentioned in smallcraft design, but most mention of them have been deleted from Mongoose.
4. By the same token, we should be able to install adventure class components in smallcraft; in fact, early versions had A suites installed for thirty tons (six gees), forty tons (five gees) and fifty tons (four gees).
5. Ten ton smallcraft hulls cost the same per ton to construct as capital ships, and construction costs decline in relative terms until they reach hundred tons, and then start up again.
6. Is it possible to construct sub ten ton smallcraft. It should, but structural integrity might be an issue, so five percent can allocated to that.
7. In non-militarized smallcraft, the largest costs will be the drive and power plant, so the ideal would be to manufacture ones that are just large enough to accomplish what they were purposed for. This also saves space if they are intended to be integral to the adventurer's mothership.
8. In CT and Mongoose, the smallest adventure class bridge is ten tons; interestingly enough, the smallest capital class bridge is a tad over ten tons. The difference might be that all adventure class bridges are modular, whereas capital class ones are customized to the ship/batch they were designed for, which makes them more efficient in layout and operation.
9. The smallest section of capital class ships is a tad over a thousand tons, which would indicate that you could construct thousand ton single shell escorts around a ten ton bridge. Whether you could construct a freight hauler around that and attach drop tanks and cargo pods is another matter (but still interesting to consider).
10. But back to what I'll call the Venture class: a hundred ton hull with J1/M1/P1 that was cheap enough to buy and maintain, and large enough to take everyone to the next adventure. The sticking points are the Jump drive, since every extra ton counted, even if you could only scrape up two or three tons, or possibly four tons, if you could isolate the jump governor in the five ton overhead and assume removal will add another ton.
11. The other problem is the Fusion Rocket reaction drive since it sucks up a fortieth of the tonnage in fuel per gee/hour. Even if you argue that grav drives can't scale into large craft, you know that you could install one with sufficient thrust upto four hundred and eight tons. This avoids trying to bypass this rule by installing a docking clamp and getting a smallcraft to act as a tug.
12. To outrun pirates or Imperial entanglements, you could install a High Burn thruster, which is only one fifth the size of the equivalent fusion rocket, though consumed a rather high priced fuel.
13. Adding a drop tank and other attachments complicates matters for jumps if the subA Jump drive is installed. If this path is followed, cleanswept is your mantra.
14. Flattened sphere seems to have been dropped from hull configurations, though I always felt that it offered the best of all possible worlds, streamlined and cheap. I always pictured my larger creations looking like clamshells, and the smaller ones like the Jupiter 2.
Back in August of this year, I posted a 30-ton fighter design that can be a rather effective fighter against non-capital ships (i.e. non-capital warships and merchants). The thread starts at http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=56635Condottiere said:
There's also a Space Superiority Fighter thread I started at the same general time at http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=56561
The discussions in that thread seem to indicate that the best combination of cost-effectiveness and combat-effectiveness in a fighter may be a design around 40 tons. I'd be interested if anyone has come up with a larger design that's more combat-effective while costing as much or even less as any of the designs in the Space Superiority Fighter thread.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
1. Raider/Fighter
a. You're paying 141 MCr for a T/PA weapons platform.
b. While PA sniping has occurred to me, it would be as part of an extended long range swarm attack.
c. I'm not a physician, but I'm fairly sure that sixteen gees would be fatal to human pilots.
d. A twenty four window doesn't leave much time for raiding.
2. Space Superiority
a. Cheers on broaching a compelling subject.
b. Forty tons allows two weapon slots on a six gee plus single-pilot single sensor single computer platform.
c. Two medium fighters probably could take out a single high end high cost fighter.
c. Will start reading the thread.
3. Jump Drive sE
a. When the Solomani started fooling around with going where no Solomani has gone before, they must figured out soon that a hundred tons was the minimum size needed to penetrate hyperspace.
b. TL8 prototypes must have been refined to production models in TL9. The incentives must have been there, as hundred ton hulls were cheaper and faster by ton to manufacture, smaller engines need less resources to produce and take up less space on starships.
c. Since then, every isolated world that managed to reproduce the feat of hyperspace travel, must have gone through the TL8/9 phase of prototype/production models.
d. Since most commercial spaceship components seem generic at TL12 (presumably), a TL9 Jump One drive must be possible to manufacture for a hundred ton hull, and that after three Tech Level advancements, must be appreciably cheaper and smaller than a generic TL11 Jump Two drive, which by TL12 only had a single generation to be refined.
e. While I thought it would be possible to eliminate the Jump Governor, further consideration brought me to the conclusion that it controlled the more or less exact distance to travel and thereby the point of arrival. Removing it fixes the amount of energy released and the distance travelled, which could be rather far from the optimum distance to the desired planetary starport.
f. A new Jump sE drive built at TL12 would be fifteen percent cheaper than at TL9, and possibly thirty percent smaller. Extrapolating from the alphabet drive list, I'd put the cost at 7 MCr, and the size at eight tons.
a. You're paying 141 MCr for a T/PA weapons platform.
b. While PA sniping has occurred to me, it would be as part of an extended long range swarm attack.
c. I'm not a physician, but I'm fairly sure that sixteen gees would be fatal to human pilots.
d. A twenty four window doesn't leave much time for raiding.
2. Space Superiority
a. Cheers on broaching a compelling subject.
b. Forty tons allows two weapon slots on a six gee plus single-pilot single sensor single computer platform.
c. Two medium fighters probably could take out a single high end high cost fighter.
c. Will start reading the thread.
3. Jump Drive sE
a. When the Solomani started fooling around with going where no Solomani has gone before, they must figured out soon that a hundred tons was the minimum size needed to penetrate hyperspace.
b. TL8 prototypes must have been refined to production models in TL9. The incentives must have been there, as hundred ton hulls were cheaper and faster by ton to manufacture, smaller engines need less resources to produce and take up less space on starships.
c. Since then, every isolated world that managed to reproduce the feat of hyperspace travel, must have gone through the TL8/9 phase of prototype/production models.
d. Since most commercial spaceship components seem generic at TL12 (presumably), a TL9 Jump One drive must be possible to manufacture for a hundred ton hull, and that after three Tech Level advancements, must be appreciably cheaper and smaller than a generic TL11 Jump Two drive, which by TL12 only had a single generation to be refined.
e. While I thought it would be possible to eliminate the Jump Governor, further consideration brought me to the conclusion that it controlled the more or less exact distance to travel and thereby the point of arrival. Removing it fixes the amount of energy released and the distance travelled, which could be rather far from the optimum distance to the desired planetary starport.
f. A new Jump sE drive built at TL12 would be fifteen percent cheaper than at TL9, and possibly thirty percent smaller. Extrapolating from the alphabet drive list, I'd put the cost at 7 MCr, and the size at eight tons.
Only if they're uncompensated for (as in inertial compensation). Given that the drive selected itself provides the Gs, I'm having to assume (uh, oh) its Gs are compensated for in the same manner the 1G to 6G drives for non-small craft are compensated for. Otherwise, why would there be 7G+ capable drives in use in small craft in the first place? Any of those drives would kill any occupant, not just humans, over a relatively-short period of time if there wasn't some kind of default inertial compensation in place.Condottiere said:
True. The 30-ton fighter is less of a raider and more of a fast-moving interceptor and customs force support craft.
Thank you! It was quite fun and educational for me while it lasted.
Or, as you'll see in the thread, it allows the use of heavy barbette-based weaponry which can turn a small craft into a very nasty brawler which non-capital warships would rather avoid.
Mmm..yes and no. It all comes down to the capabilities of said fighters.
Excellent! Whether or not you agree with the postings in it, I hope you find it entertaining and thought -provoking.
Remember doing some cheap merchants many many moons ago, figured it just needed to get off a surface to 100D then jump and be able to navigate a bit at the other end.
Did this in two ways, two separate craft with similar ideas.
Craft #1:
Fitted two power plants, only used one at a time, one was configured to run the thrusters etc at full power (no weapons). This got you to and from orbit and the jump point. Second plant ran the life support, gravity systems etc and was used during the jump, used less fuel. Cost a bit more on the ship build but gave extra space for payload. This sort of worked but was a bit 'meah'
Craft #2:
Dug up "Hard Times", getting to and from orbit was handled by a fusion drive, rest of the ship apart from the jump drive and computers was low tech stuff. Pretty cheap to build, had 2G performance for liftoff and landing, but just about enough fuel to do it with a bit spare (easy to add a fuel pod in the cargo bays). Huge advantage, when unloaded by gork that thing could shift...
You can make huge savings on fuel by avoiding the "30 days" ability to drive your ship at its full power rating.
Normally design craft using the MT UCP rules (sort of enjoy it in a masochistic way) tend to heavily optimise the fuel usage, operating power plants at different levels to cut fuel burns or running multiple power plants. Don't care that the rules say only one can run at a time - I tend to have one to power the drives (a big one), warships get a second one for the weapons suite and they all get one for the normal loads. Craft thus get three or four power levels:
1. Emergency loads only (life support, grav in a few places maybe, radios etc, low berths)
2. Hotel loads only (craft sitting on a planets surface or in orbit, not thrusting)
3. Hotel + drives, cruise mode in effect
4. High power: take off and landing, combat systems etc
All came about due to the high power plant fuel needs for a MT craft. Where possible the ships gets 30 days at hotel, 90 days at emergency dedicated fuel (can easily handle a year or two at this level using other fuel, you won't have the food for it). Add for a merchant say 5 days of cruise thrust, a warship would get more at 1G/2G. then add maybe 24 hours at 'combat' full power.
Seriously drops the amount of fuel you need to carry, for low tech craft that means less mass to move so better performance, for grav craft its either longer endurance or more payload.
Also if you want a combat craft that will infuriate people for a short time, a fusion drive and an un-armoured craft can easily exceed 6G
Did this in two ways, two separate craft with similar ideas.
Craft #1:
Fitted two power plants, only used one at a time, one was configured to run the thrusters etc at full power (no weapons). This got you to and from orbit and the jump point. Second plant ran the life support, gravity systems etc and was used during the jump, used less fuel. Cost a bit more on the ship build but gave extra space for payload. This sort of worked but was a bit 'meah'
Craft #2:
Dug up "Hard Times", getting to and from orbit was handled by a fusion drive, rest of the ship apart from the jump drive and computers was low tech stuff. Pretty cheap to build, had 2G performance for liftoff and landing, but just about enough fuel to do it with a bit spare (easy to add a fuel pod in the cargo bays). Huge advantage, when unloaded by gork that thing could shift...
You can make huge savings on fuel by avoiding the "30 days" ability to drive your ship at its full power rating.
Normally design craft using the MT UCP rules (sort of enjoy it in a masochistic way) tend to heavily optimise the fuel usage, operating power plants at different levels to cut fuel burns or running multiple power plants. Don't care that the rules say only one can run at a time - I tend to have one to power the drives (a big one), warships get a second one for the weapons suite and they all get one for the normal loads. Craft thus get three or four power levels:
1. Emergency loads only (life support, grav in a few places maybe, radios etc, low berths)
2. Hotel loads only (craft sitting on a planets surface or in orbit, not thrusting)
3. Hotel + drives, cruise mode in effect
4. High power: take off and landing, combat systems etc
All came about due to the high power plant fuel needs for a MT craft. Where possible the ships gets 30 days at hotel, 90 days at emergency dedicated fuel (can easily handle a year or two at this level using other fuel, you won't have the food for it). Add for a merchant say 5 days of cruise thrust, a warship would get more at 1G/2G. then add maybe 24 hours at 'combat' full power.
Seriously drops the amount of fuel you need to carry, for low tech craft that means less mass to move so better performance, for grav craft its either longer endurance or more payload.
Also if you want a combat craft that will infuriate people for a short time, a fusion drive and an un-armoured craft can easily exceed 6G
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Smallest possible civilian smallcraft
Rocket Sled
1. Two ton hull at 0.2 Mcr.
2. Reinforced structure 5% is 0.1 tons at 20'000 Cr.
3. Cockpit compact 1.125 tons at 0.15 Mcr (based on 20 tons, otherwise 42'000 Cr); standard electronics suite and iPod.
4. Chemical battery factor one (1.2 tons/10) 0.12 tons at 1.2 MCr for one hour activity, plus 0.003 tons at 30'000 Cr for twenty five hour standby.
5. High Burn Thruster sA 0.05 tons at 0.1 MCr.
6. Thruster fuel consumption 0.0125 tons for an hour burn at 125 Cr.
7. Flight crew of Pilot.
8. 1.5005 tons//1.7 MCr.
9. Cargo/unallocated 0.4995 tons
Performance 10 gees for one hour.
Rocket Sled
1. Two ton hull at 0.2 Mcr.
2. Reinforced structure 5% is 0.1 tons at 20'000 Cr.
3. Cockpit compact 1.125 tons at 0.15 Mcr (based on 20 tons, otherwise 42'000 Cr); standard electronics suite and iPod.
4. Chemical battery factor one (1.2 tons/10) 0.12 tons at 1.2 MCr for one hour activity, plus 0.003 tons at 30'000 Cr for twenty five hour standby.
5. High Burn Thruster sA 0.05 tons at 0.1 MCr.
6. Thruster fuel consumption 0.0125 tons for an hour burn at 125 Cr.
7. Flight crew of Pilot.
8. 1.5005 tons//1.7 MCr.
9. Cargo/unallocated 0.4995 tons
Performance 10 gees for one hour.
